2018 (9) TMI 1488 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeals due to lengthy delays and inadequate explanations

The Tribunal declined to condone delays of 376 days and 499 days in filing appeals due to misplaced order and negligence of the appellant. The appeals ... Condonation of delay of 376 days and 499 days in filing the present appeals - Satisfactory explanation for delay not given - the only ground given by the applicant for seeking COD of 376 days and 499 days is that the security person on whom the impugned order was served misplaced the same and did not give to Accounts Department - Held that:- This reason given for such a long delay does not inspire confidence. Further, the two appeals have been filed by the appellant (one by the company and other by the Managing Director) against the same impugned order, but the delay caused in both the appeals is different i.e. in one appeal 376 days and in other appeal filed by the Managing Director is 499 days, which clearly proves that appellant has been negligent in pursuing their cases - delay cannot be condoned - COD Application dismissed. Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to misplaced order and negligence of appellant.Analysis:The applicant sought condonation of delay of 376 days and 499 days in filing appeals, citing that the order was served to security personnel who misplaced it, leading to non-filing within the stipulated time frame. The applicant engaged a consultant for handling Central Excise matters, who failed to inform about the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner(Appeals). The delay was discovered only upon receiving a notice of property attachment. The applicant prayed for condonation of delay and decision on merits.The learned AR contended that the reasons provided for delay were unsatisfactory. The applicant admitted in the affidavit that the order was served to security personnel who misplaced it, but failed to explain how they eventually retrieved the order. The AR argued that the explanations in the affidavit lacked clarity on the recovery of the misplaced order.Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant's explanation for the significant delays unconvincing. Notably, two appeals were filed against the same order, one by the company and the other by the Managing Director, with varying delays of 376 days and 499 days respectively. This discrepancy indicated negligence on the part of the appellant in pursuing their cases. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided were not persuasive, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay applications and subsequent dismissal of the appeals.In the final judgment pronounced on 03/09/2018, the Tribunal declined to condone the delays of 376 days and 499 days in filing the appeals, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeals themselves.